Unbelievable!

Thank you, Selectman Lyons for being rational.

As for Selectman Campbell...you are a conspiracy nut if you believe the Teaparty propaganda or think that GSF has a sinister philosophy that is against private property or private water rights. Only you and other Glenn Beck conspiracy types push that tripe.

You just have to love the veiled threat: "The planning project, titled Granite State Future, will still go forward. Salem will just not have a seat at the table at the discussions." This is proof the 'plan' is neither only advisory nor is it true that it has no 'strings' attached. If Salem has no seat at the table, it means they also won't be subjected to the new rules, laws, and taxes this panel of unelected bureaucrats are dreaming up as we speak. (Actually they are not dreaming them up -- the plans come directly from the American Planning Association, another globalist NGO that has no business telling towns in NH what to do)

Thank you residents of Salem for PAYING ATTENTION.

When they say they are going ahead with it, that sounds pretty concrete to me. As soon as anyone suggests measuring things, next comes taxing, and finally controlling those things. IF they are only 'advisory' as they claim, Salem shouldn't be missing out on anything except more restrictions and redistribution of the wealth. And if you read the document produced by their executive committee, I'd say those goals are pretty concrete as well (making RPCs more than advisory, passing new laws and taxes, etc.) Nothing 'conspiracy' about it... but some will use that word when they have no other defense.

Lyons is right when he says "I have an impression that national and state party politics are being introduced at this local level," and that is exactly the problem. GSF ideas do not come from the local public, but from national/international sources.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106642535/New-Hampshire-Sustainable-Communities-

Here is a link to a document from Granite State Future. Check out Page 15, where it mentions barriers to implementation. It says that one of the barriers is a NH tradition of private property rights.

@Tammy: Perhaps you could be taken more seriously if you explain why you want more restrictions and higher taxes instead of in each post, calling people names like 'nuts' just because they do not want these added burdens. What is it that you think you want from this program?

4/5 of selectmen make sure Salem, NH = Mayberry RFD. And they wonder why HUD won't answer our letter? I'm sure it was pinned up on the office joke board.

Mr. Shurtleff,

Here is more info related to the quote you referenced:

"Anticipated barriers include NH‟s strong tradition of individual property rights and resultant resistance to planning and zoning”

“During the planning process the Regional Advisory Committee will identify any additional common barriers and strategies and bring these to the Sustainability Policy Committee. The Policy Committee (whose members include decision-makers from the DOT, DES, OEP, etc.) will work together to identify potential statewide strategies for reducing and/or eliminating the barriers. These strategies will then also be incorporated into the final Statewide Sustainable Development Policy Framework.”

- Grant Application Narrative (pg 17/27)

"Aligned federal planning and investment resources that mirror the local and regional strategies for achieving sustainable communities."
– HUD NOFA (pg 60, “Mandatory Outcomes”)

“The Cooperative Agreement allows for substantial involvement of HUD staff to enhance the performance of the grantee in the completion of their deliverables.”
– HUD Terms and Conditions document (pg 18/27)

The GSF program provides a conduit for the Federal government to directly influence the policies at the regional level -- which then migrate to the state and local levels within the structure of the program. This violates State Sovereignty.

“Each of the regional planning commission’s will integrate its Regional Plan for Sustainable Development (RPSD) into other federal and state funded initiatives, as well as, integrate the work of these other programs into the RPSD.”
- Grant Application Narrative (pg 25/27)

Here is one that shows it is NOT an advisory program;

“The EC will seek endorsement of the plan by the NH Council on Resources and Development, predominantly comprised of NH SCI state agency partners, which will help to ensure that state agencies institutionalize the plan and that sources of funding align with the plan.”
- GSF Detailed_ScopeofWork document (pg 16/16)

The "EC" is the Executive Committee". The NH SCI refers to the NH Sustainable Community Initiative state agency partners that are already represented on the NH Council on Resources and Development where the GSF partners will seek endorsement from themselves. The plan, as stated in their own words, is to have state agencies "Institutionalize" the plan AND to ensure funding.

While the Granite State Future program has similar goals to Agenda 21, it is NOT Agenda 21. It is a $100M Federal program that is being managed by HUD, the EPA and the DOT. It is being implemented at regional levels in different states across the country. It comes with some bizarre mandatory outcomes, such as reduced VMTs (vehicle miles traveled).

Keep Speaking the truth Jane, Tammy and those like her are just useful idiots that wouldn't know a conspiracy if it smacked them upside the head. There are lots of us fighting Agenda 21 and each victory brings more threats and ridicule, but we shall win.

This is fantastic news. Just last night I gave a Granite State Future - The Real Facts presentation to the Planning Board in New Hampton. This is a town in the center of the state. When the board members discovered that the Granite State Future is NOT advisory in nature - it clearly says that on the History and Priciples page of the official Granite State Future website (www.granitestatefuture.org) - they were not happy.

Look at the cornerstone document of Granite State Future, the HUD-1044 Grant Instrument that Ms. Kerrie Diers, the Executive Director of the Nashua Regional Planning Commission signed with HUD, and it clearly says:

“This instrument (the HUD-1044, HUD-1044 Continuation Sheet) sets forth a legally binding agreement between the parties as to the amouts, deliverables, tasks, period of performance, terms and conditions, here within, whether implicitly stated or referenced. The Recipient certifies that all administrative and financial provisions of this instrument are in and will continue to be in compliance for the duration of the period of performance. All covenants referenced or stated, are agreed to by the recpipent upon signing this instrument.”

The definition of “advisory” is:

“having or consisting in the power to make recommendations but not to take action enforcing them”

Signing a legally binding agreement means you’re bound by whatever the document, and all of the sub-documents that are part of the agreement, say you must do.

Having personally witnessed the Rochester city council at first recommend a GSF project and then later vote it down, and then a denial of GSF in Salem where they all but run GSF, HUD and the NHRPCs out of town restores my faith in my fellow man.
A 'thank you' to the good folks of Salem.

Congratulations to the Salem Selectmen for their decision to remove Salem from the Granite State Futures program that HUD is trying to implement on the unsuspecting citizens of New Hampshire. This program threatens our property rights and has no place in a free society. It's time that more town officials took notice to what is really going on with this program.
Diane Bitter

We're out because there was no clear benifit for Salem. We've become members of other organizations like this in past and the cost always out weighs the benifit. This is mostly because of the needs of the other towns surrounding Salem and they base the membership cost on size of the comunity.

Salem made the right decision. This GSF federal program is being strongly rejected by a growing number of communities and states all over the nation and for good reason. It means a loss of local sovereignty, top down government control and ultimately a loss of individual freedoms and your property rights. Those are the facts as evidenced by what this agreement dictates! Non-elected commissions with increasing powers are a terrible idea. Tell your friends in other communities to oppose this!
-Peter Walker

This is a tough decision for any elected official. With the abundance of information that defines the scope of this program -- and most of it innocuous -- it is very difficult to see the forest through the trees. I commend the Salem Selectmen for taking the time to do their own research and learn the true nature of this program before making their decision as to what they felt is in the best interest of their town.

The patients have taken over the asylum, and Salem is now going to loose millions of dollars in federal funding because we let a small group of out of town loonies scare the board into inaction.

The board asked both the Granite State Futures group, which is the NH state government entity that does “master plans” for towns across NH and the federal government to provide them with letter saying there was no binding contract between the town and this program…and they both did signed by lawyers. The board was given a copy of the legal opinion given by the Windham Town Counsel (Salem’s own Bernie Campbell) who wrote there is “no legal binding contract between the town and GSF or HUD!

“Conspiracy Ken” Eyring, (who lives not in Salem but Windham where the town counsel dismissed his craziness and signed the agreement with GSF – so in his own town where Ken is a “known entity” the voted to participate) who has posted “a lot of legal facts,” is neither a lawyer nor a scholar…he’s just a Tea Party wacko. That goes for the people who came with him in October from Rochester, the woman who kept waiving the NH Constitution around at the meeting was just dumped out of her state rep seat in Rochester for the same reason Ken Eyring was ignored in his home town…crazy train.

I can’t believe four of the selectman missed or ignored: 1. The plan, which will play the key role in determining federal funding for the “Route 93 Corridor” has been moving forward for months now, without input from Salem. 2. Not participating will greatly reduce federal grants Salem will get going forward from HUD, DOT and EPA…say goodbye to any more money for Senior Housing. 3. The Rockingham County Regional Planning Commission will substitute its opinion as to what Salem needs or wants in the Regional Plan and the federal government will use to award grant money.

And Stephen Campbell, whether you believe in conspiracy theories or not and whether you believe the Federal Government is trying to take over property or water rights they way you address it is not to bury your head in the sand, ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Your idea that by not participating you have some legal or moral high ground clearly shows you have no sense of the law or the Constitution.

For those who think this is some made up conspiracy, think again. I live in California. We have exactly the same thing. It is called Plan Bay Area or One Bay Area. It is exactly the same thing as the Granite State Future, just a name change, same policies. This is top down central planning that is being promoted by HUD, DOT, and EPA. The threat for non-compliance is loss of highway funds ($300Billion in the case of the Bay Area). Local city councils and county supervisors will become irrelevant. Any city, no matter how small, must follow the template of high density housing and transit villages. This is worse than the old Soviet Union. There is no local input to these plans. It is time for all citizens who care about property rights and individual liberty to stand up and "Just Say No". Congratulations Salem. You did the right thing !!!!

Hey Rip. You seem to obsessed about losing money. Ever wonder where that money comes from? It is not fairy dust dropping out of the sky. It comes from TAXPAYERS and it is not "free money". It also comes with strings attached. So you are willing to sell your liberty and the economic future of your children and grandchildren for some wasteful program that promises a Utopian future. Wake up. You are believing the propaganda of the bureaucrats and going down the path of economic slavery and the loss of property rights for a few pieces of silver. Judas would be proud of you.

Rip, you are quick to attack and attach labels to those that disagree with your ideologies. Your personal attacks don't change the scope of the program, and the fact that the end result will be a loss of local control. The decisions within the program are being made by unelected people who do not have direct input from the townspeople. State and Federal agencies, as well as pay-to-play partners (in the tune of close to $1M) now have a direct input into state policy that will be integrated and "institutionalized" into the partner agencies. These words are from the GSF documentation, not mine.

Your concerns regarding lost grant money in the future are unfounded, according to Greg Carson from the NH DES has stated numerous times that participating or not will not have a direct impact as to whether or not a town will receive funding.

It's unfortunate that I respect your thoughts and comments, but those that are opposed to yours are not tolerated.

Tammy and Riley Reid, I am confident that you are both rational intelligent people and would see that the Federal Government is not capable of Sustainable Development. The Salem selectmen did their due diligence and came to the correct conclusion. The Federal Government should not be allow to inflict it's failures onto New Hampshire towns. This issue should not divid us. Look at the information and consider how the Federal Government is functioning these days. Do you trust that they can bring solutions to our problems? I have more faith in you personally then any federal program.

Ken, I do respect your right to express your opinion in your own town and your own own dismissed your concerns, so you thought it appropriate to bring that same craziness to our town?

But just to make a point about your ability to discern "facts" and particularly "legal facts" Attorney Greg Carson is the Director of US Dept of Housing and Urban Development - that would be HUD, the very agency "windmill" you are titling against.

So tell us Ken, you have now stated in writing you (and therefore we) are relying on HUD's Attorney Carson telling the town the "truth" about will not have a direct impact on future funding, but then you call him a bold face liar when he says there is "no legally binding obligation imposed upon Salem by participating in the development of the Rockingham Regional Plan?"

I would like to see the four selectmen's faces when they learn through these postings you have no idea what your talking about and they have been duped by a conspiracy nut...mostly because they are afraid of losing a few votes. LMAO!

And to "Mimi from California" (the land of outrageous taxes and very special crazies) we the people of Salem are the taxpayers sending that money to DC...unlike California, New Hampshire send more money to DC then we get back so every dime of that is ours.

This is the best news I have heard since the elections. Not that a dam soul cares what I think, but here it is anyway. Federal Grant Money of any kind in my opinion is bribe money with all kinds of strings attached. We all need to have more perosnal responsibility, that means our local governments as well. Federal grant money is made to sound so sweet, don't fall for it, it is a trap. Why is our government giving out so much grant money anyway, I think I heard in the news that we are trillions of dollars in debt to Communist Red China and about to fall off some sort of fiscal cliff, did you hear that or did I misunderstand? These selectman who have had enough sense to see through this trapping procedure need to be praised. It is a breath of fresh air to see a town that still can think independently and not have to go along to get along for the wrong reasons. Thankyou for voting no on Granite State Futures

Hi all, I want to advise you against name-calling in the comments, as per our Terms of Use.

Rip: "but then you call him a bold face liar when he says there is "no legally binding obligation imposed upon Salem by participating in the development of the Rockingham Regional Plan?"

I'd appreciate it if you would show me where/when I made a statement to the Salem BoS that indicated to them that the town of Salem would be bound by the legally binding agreements. I know that Salem won't be. That is not the point that I made when I had a few minutes to speak to the Selectmen. My concerns are the loss of local control, which Edward Comeau alluded to above. He is a commissioner on one of these Regional Planning Commissions. He knows this to be the case. Perhaps he will chime in and confirm.

Rip, as for Windham signing onto the program, that doesn't prove that my concerns are incorrect. At the time that we expressed our concerns to the Windham BOS, we only had only learned of the program and had just a few days before their BOS meeting to research it. We read as much as we could, and felt we should express our concerns. The Selectmen were also concerned -- and decided to put off their decision. Between then and the next meeting, we read a little more, and learned a little more of the program -- and share that new info with the BOS -- and again they were concerned enough to put off their decision again.

The third time the BOS met to decide, it was a 3-2 vote to approve. Back then, we were concerned that the towns would be legally bound to the agreement. It is a very complicated program with many mandates. Since then, I have reviewed thousands of pages related to the program, and attended many committee meetings. I no longer believe the towns will be legally bound to the agreement, but I am concerned about the goals and scope of the program, and shared those concerns with the Salem BOS. I respected that the decision was theirs to make -- but wanted them to understand what the RPC commissioners failed to tell them.

In this case, the BOS knew nothing about the program.

To sum it up, the message that was presented to the Salem BoS was a loss of local control.

I find it frightening that Granite State Future/Sustainable Communities Initiative seeks to circumvent the Constitutionally protected legislative process and even more frightening that no one seems to be asking why? The governmental structure that we already have in place gives Congress the power to tax and spend. And, as citizens, we have the right to contact our elected representatives and to have our voices heard with regards to legislation at the federal level.
Most people have no idea that the regular checks and balance system as originally designed by our Founders is being subverted.
The Selectmen wouldn't have been put in the position of having to go through this process in the first place had the regular Constitutional process had been followed. The Federal government would have been responsible for paying for their projects and they would not be looking to the residents. The residents could have contacted their Congressional representatives and had a say in the legislation.
Where is the grant money coming from for all these subsidies?
Who's getting the grant money it?
Who's paying for it?
When will the subsidies end?
Who'll be responsible for funding the projects once the subsidies expire?
Isn't it the old bait and switch game with the taxpayer getting the short end of the stick?
Follow the money.

I agree with the selectmen of Salem in their decision to say NO to more government spending and waste and the inevitable loss of freedom due to more control over us. I also agree to stop the name calling when you disagree with someone. We can be civil to each other when we disagree.
Good job Salem citizens and selectmen.
Margie Diggins